F 

(bT 



.Fas ^:J/ 





WHO 



FIRST GO YE UN Oil 



MASSACHUSETTS? 






Class. 
Book. 



FtY 



Fa^ 



WHO 



FIRST GOYEHNOR 



MASSACHUSETTS? 



Mz 



BY JOSEPH b; felt 



. ILA 



Vcritatis simplex oratio est. — Seneca. 

Shall truth fail to keep her %vord, 
Justice divine not hasten to be just.' 

Milton. 



BOSTON: 
PRESS OF T. R, aiARVlN, 42 CONGRESS STREET. 
h\ 1853. 



/, 



^ 



V 



WHO WAS THE FIRST GOVERNOR 

OF 

MASSACHUSETTS? 



To differ in opinion, on this or other topics of inquiry, 
especially with those noted for their talents and acquirements, 
is always attended with unpleasant associations and feelings. 
Still it is the lot of human imperfection, and unavoidable 
in the discussion of sentiments and opinions honestly enter- 
tained. 

The occasion of the question just submitted is a note re- 
cently published by the Hon. James Savage, in his second 
edition of Winthrop's Journal. This note is printed on pages 
200 to 203 inclusive, of the second volume. It contains an 
argument against some remarks in the first volume of the 
Annals of Salem, which advocate the position that Eudicott 
preceded Winthrop as the proper Governor of this Com- 
raonweallh. It advances and debates two prominent ideas, 
which, as the writer thinks, call for examination. One is, that 
the comparison between the source of Carver's trust as chief 
magistrate of Plymouth Colony, and that of Endicott's, is 
incorrect. Another, that because the latter person held office 
under those of the Company of Massachusetts, who resided in 
England, he was, therefore, no Governor, in 1629, in the right 
acceptation of the word. 

We will endeavor to take a fair view of these two subjects, 
in the order already presented. 

With regard to the comparison, the maker of it intended by 
it neither more nor less, than relative authority for offices, 
designated by the like names. His language was: "The rule, 



which required John Carver to be accounted Governor of 
Plymouth, gives Mr. Endicott similar precedency to Mr. 
Winthrop." That we may perceive more fully the force of 
this remarlc, we will glance at the newly arrived Pilgrims on 
the coast, which they concluded to adopt as their refuge from 
the trials of the Old World. They had no more authority for 
their plantation, government and protection, than the Patent, 
received from the Company of North and South Virginia, by 
John Wincob in his own name, who, to their deep regret, was 
unable to take passage with them. The main cause of their 
having no better warrant to occupy territory on our shores, 
was the opposition of the King and his prominent supporters, 
to the encouragement of dissenters in any part of his dominions. 
Such a document was no more available for their purposes, 
than the subsequent one, taken out by John Pierce, and termed 
a " Deed Pole," from the Company of New England, and sold 
by him, at an exorbitant advance, to the adventurers for the 
Colony, in 1C23, after he had unsuccessfully striven to hold 
the settlers here as tenants at his will. It was of less force and 
worth than the Patent, obtained iVom the same authorities, in 
1630, which the rulers of Plymouth Plantation considered — as 
is plain from their several earnest petitions to the throne, imtil 
the Usurpation — as not near so valuable for securing their 
privileges, as the Charter of our Commonwealth, under the 
directions of which Endicott was elected Governor in 1629. 

The intimation, that the contract, signed by Carver and his 
associates, was sufficient to endow him with the full honor and 
responsibilities of a chief magistrate, while the instrument, 
which authorized Endicott to sustain a similar relation to the 
people with him, could not place him upon an equal footing 
with the former, may be judged of by the conduct of the 
Pilgrims themselves. The anxious and protracted eflbrts, 
which they made before their embarkation from Leyden, to 
obtain even their first Patent, materially defective as it was, 
shows how very reluctant they were to be compelled, when 
arrived at their new abode in America, to adopt tlie last resort 
of self-constituted government. It is evident to me, that they 
would have much preferred, that Carver should be placed over 
them by authority of their own Comjiany, like that which 
promoted Endicott, than by that which they were forced to 



create through absoUite, unsoiiglit and unwelcome necessity. 
Besides, Carver was no less dependent on the will of the 
immigrants, who placed him at the iiead of their affairs, than 
Endicott was on that of his fellow members of the Corporation, 
who voted that the supreme care of their colony should be 
committed to him. 

In view of these considerations, is there any inaccuracy in 
the foregoing quotation ? The meaning of it is plainly, that if 
Carver's forty associates chose him for their head, without con- 
stitutional power from any charter from the Crown, or without 
any Patent, in the general name of their Company, from the 
Corporation of North and South Virginia, and he might, under 
such circumstances be rightfully entitled Governor in advance 
of Bradford, — there is full as much prof)riety, to say the least, 
that Endicott, chosen by freemen or members of the Massa- 
chusetts Company, among whom he held a prominent stand, 
assembled in General Court, in London, and under royal sanc- 
tion, to be their Governor of this Commonwealth, — should be 
alike entitled precedently to Winthrop. It seems to me in- 
capable of candid and true contradiction, that the com{)arison 
was and is pertinent and correct in its application, and that 
both cases, considered as to the sources whence the power of 
governing was derived, are the same in a corporate kind, though 
diverse in degree, and that it is much more in favor of 
Endicott than of Carver, though I believe that the latter 
may justly hold his rank as the first and chief ruler of the 
Pilgrmis. 

We will next consider the position, that because Endicott 
was appointed chief magistrate for our colony, by members of 
the Company, convened in London, in 1629, still this consti- 
tuted him no Governor in the true acceptation of the term. 

For an intelligent settlement of this point, much depends 
on the right interpretation of the word denoting such an oflicer 
of state. A few late writers have had printed in their works 
the very expressions of the General Court in England, which 
inform us in the most direct and plainest style, that they 
elected Endicott as their colonial Governor; and at the same 
time these authors, while denying that he fully sustained such 
a relation, have utterly omitted to tell their readers what mean- 
ing they attach to their negation. They cannot justly complain 



6 

if those who trace their course suppose that the paramount 
reason why they have gone thus far, and then failed to guide 
inquirers further, as they were bound to do, is that they could 
not proceed with satisfaction to themselves, and much less to 
those who are convinced that their whole direction, so far as 
away from the plain landmark set up by the phraseology of the 
court, just referred to, is totally unauthorized. The general 
drift of their remarks that Governor, in reference to Endicott, 
means something lower than the standing of such an officer, 
who is allowed his full rank, and there leaving the mind which 
desires to ascertain the proportion and particulars of such de- 
duction in utter darkness, may lead to bewilder, but is far from 
being acceptable to every person who would know the whole 
truth. 

It would afford much pleasure to the writer, could he per- 
ceive that the position of Mr. Savage, under this head, was 
entirely free from the deficiency just mentioned. After adduc- 
ing several passages from the charter, to show that Endicott 
held his trust from the Company at home, he quotes as follows, 
from the same document : " The authority, office and power, 
before given to the former governor, deputy, etc., in whose 
stead or place neio shall be so chosen, shall, as to him and 
them, and every of them, cease and determine." These words, 
as they evidently appear to me, have an immediate appli- 
cation to the succession of the Company's officers in England, 
and the consequent surrender of their respective trusts. I do 
not understand that they have any direct bearing upon colonial 
officers. Mr. Savage places the subsequent phrase, directly 
after the close of them, " These last words settle the business." 
If such a settlement mean, which is what I comprehend by it, 
that Endicott was Governor here in 1629, by election of the 
company in London, and thus subordinate to them, it entirely 
harmonizes with my own views, and I do not recollect ever 
having heard it denied. 

It is true of him, and of all regular Governors. None of 
them can or ever could assert, that they do not or did not 
possess their power subordinately, in a greater or less degree, 
according to its origin. Were it a fact, that on account of such 
subordinacy no man chosen under it ever was or ever could be 
a proper Governor, the issue of the present instance would be 



closed ; tlie matter would be settled, and to raise any query 
about it, would be indeed "an idle question." But the truth 
iu the premises assumes, to my apprehension, a very different 
aspect. 

The subordinacy under consideration may be corporate, regal 
or popular. Of course there is no need for us to observe, ex- 
cept to meet objections occasionally thrown, as dust, into our 
eyes, so that we may not see our way clearly, that the term 
denoting such chief magistrate, does not signify a tutor, as 
Locke used it in his treatise on education, nor pilot of a ship, 
as the Apostle James applied it, nor president of a bank, nor 
superintendent of a hospital, etc., as not unfrequently used in 
the parlance of England. The definition of Governor, as 
exemplified and verified in the history of our country, may 
be learned from its several administrations of government. 
AVhile different sections of it were owned and controlled by 
companies in Euroj)e, and afterwards to some extent in this 
land, they exercised a corporate power in the choice of their 
Governors for their respective colonies. When these came 
under provincial rule, the Kings of England appointed such 
officers at their own pleasure. When they were made inde- 
pendent of the crown, the people elected these magistrates. 
All these elections were made on principles, as laid down in 
patents, charters and constitutions. Here we have a practical 
idea of what Governors have been in different periods of our 
country ; an explanation wliich shows that they were delegated 
to rule over their respective States, according to established 
principles, by the companies, sovereigns and people who ap- 
pointed them. No well informed historian undertakes to assert 
that the primitive Governors of New Netherland, subsequently 
New York, were not properly so because they were strictly 
subordinate to the States General, and then to the W^est India 
Company in Holland ; or that the like Governors or Presidents 
of Virginia were not really and completely such officers, because 
they derived their station from the company who owned their 
portion of English America. We might select no small num- 
ber of other parallel instances to confirm our position. The 
two especially cited are well known; — to the point, and suffi- 
cient for our purpose. 

But here we ask, is it true that Endicott was not fully Gov- 



8 

ernor in 1629, because so entitled and empowered by members 
of the Company in London ? If so, we are reduced to the 
necessity of disallowing the representations of our hitherto 
credible historians, who describe the administrations of the 
Dutch and Virginia Governors just referred to, as rightfully so 
denominated ; we must change our impressions, and while we 
speak of them as Governors, we must entertain a mental reser- 
vation which degrades them below the level indicated by their 
title, and assigns to them an uncertain grade which no language 
has yet, to the knowledge of the writer, intelligently, satisfac- 
torily and truly defined. We are, therefore, constrained to 
grant, that the doctrine of subordinacy, as here set forth, tends 
to an absurdity ; proves far too much, and consequently should 
be rejected as unsound, unsafe, and introducing confusion into 
the records of our history. Of course, a doctrine of such a cast 
and character should never be applied to Endicott, and thus 
strip him of the honor of being the first Governor of the ter- 
ritory and population of our Commonwealth. 

There are several particulars which bear on this subject and 
call for our attention at the present stage. 

To sink Endicott from the head of the list of our chief mag- 
istrates, because of subordinacy, seems to imply that there was 
some essential difference, with reference to him and Winthrop, 
in the mode of their election and in the principles of their 
administration. But was there in reality ? No ; Endicott was 
chosen by freemen of the Company in London. So was 
Winthrop ; and after the latter came hither, he was rechosen 
by freemen of the same corporation, who dwelt here, and was, 
in every respect, as much subordinate to them, separately 
viewed on both sides of the Atlantic, as ever Endicott was. 

How was it as to principles of administration ? Endicott, 
for 1629, had in his hands, as the basis of his action, the 
charter, designated in its words, " Letters patent, or the dupli- 
cate or exemplification thereof," with the royal seal. It is true 
that Mr. Savage remarks concerning him, on the 30th page 
of his late first volume — " He had a commission from the 
Company to act as Governor, which was, of course superseded 
by the arrival of Winthrop with the charter." Some readers 
may construe this to intimate that Endicott did not have the 
charter for his direction. As a caveat against such a mistake, 



9 

they will bear in mind that he did have it, not varying one jot 
or tittle from the one bronght over by his successor, as to all 
its requisites for tho colonial legislation, which shows, without 
any just contradiction, that the principles of government were 
the same for both of them. Hence, as the cause instanced in 
the outset of this paragraph has no foundation, its effect cannot 
be equitably allowed. 

The statement made by Mr. Savage, that he never saw any 
sufficient evidence of Endicott's exercising the duties of Gov- 
ernor in a regular Court is, as it seems to me, no conclusive 
argument that he did thus come short of his assigned service. 
It would indeed have been a phenomenon in political economy, 
had not various cases come before him, which in a colony of 
three years' continuance, demanded the collective deliberation, 
decision and execution of himself and associates in government. 
The letters of Cradock to him show that he had no lack of 
such business to perform, and his well known reputation for 
promptness, activity and faithfulness, are a guarantee that he 
did not suffer it to be neglected. The natural inference which 
most minds would make relative to absence of positive proof, 
if there were none, that Endicott and his Court did not omit 
legislation altogether, would be, that the records of it were 
lost, as those of Salem, then the capital, were for several years, 
relative to its primitive municipal transactions. 

That Endicott did hold a General Court there, is indicated, 
to my apprehension, by Morton of Mount VVoUaston, who de- 
scribes, in his new English Canaan, being present in such an 
assembly. The account which this narrator gives, how a force 
was sent to seize him and his effects, because he, in the exhi- 
bition of his staunch attachment to the national church, refused 
obedience to the charter authorities, is competent evidence that 
they were no drones; that they were vigilant watchmen of the 
Commonwealth, and adopted all needed measures in their ses- 
sions for the regular management of colonial affairs. 

Further, the serious occurrence which involved the banish- 
ment of the Brownes, would naturally summon the majority 
of the rulers together, demand and receive their anxious con- 
sideration and final decision. Had they failed so to do, there 
is a moral certainty that the correspondence of the London 
2 



10 

Court, which ensued, would have charged them with a gross 
violation of their important trusts, which it did not. 

Here we meet the assertion of Mr. Savage, previously inti- 
mated. It follows : " Nor is there a scrap of any record of 
proceedings ever had under his authority." As a necessary 
indication that there was such a record, we have the subsequent 
information. Ii is found in the Massachusetts Historical Soci- 
ety's Collections, 3 s., 9 v., 257 p. It is an extract from a letter 
of John Howes, in London, 1633, bearing on the devices and 
exertions already commenced at St. James' for the overthrow 
of onr civil and religious institutions. It is, that about twenty- 
two of Endicott's laws were recently laid before the Lords. 
These acts, as we have reason to conclude, were selected by 
foes to our Plantation from a code which contained not a few 
more applicable to the wants and relations of the inhabitants, 
and not construed as opposed to the laws of the mother coun- 
try. They are the strongest proof that Endicott and others, 
of a regularly constituted legislature, however small, did come 
up to the requisitions for which they were appointed by the 
Company in London. They thus exemplified the power be- 
stowed upon them expressly by the charter, " to correct, punish, 
govern and rule all the king's subjects" within the compass of 
their jurisdiction. Of course the mistake, which represents 
them in a very different attitude, so that they should be looked 
on as a body of little or no consequence, and thus their Gov- 
ernor be degraded like themselves, rests on mere fiction and 
not fact. It ought not, and wherever truth is allowed its legit- 
mate sway, will not press him down from his right position. 

Should the administration of Endicott be disparaged, and 
consequently his standing, as its chief magistrate, meet with 
similar fare, because the number of his assistants was not large? 
To answer this question as it should be, we must not look at 
it singly and separately from all others. It is true that the 
Browne's were sent home. But there remained for Endicott's 
assistants, Higginson, Skelton, Bright, Graves, Sharp, and most 
probably the three more whom they were authorized to choose, 
if not the two additional ones whom the old planters, as Conant 
and his associates, were privileged to elect. In such an emer- 
gency, it is not at all likely that men like the three first, just 



11 

named, would despond and neglect to avail themselves of their 
right to supply deficient members, strengthen their hands, and 
thns support their cause. 

From these points we look to Plymouth Colony. We hear, 
we perceive not even the whisper of a suspicion, but that the 
rule of Carver was such as to secure. his appropriate rank, 
though he had no assistant ; but that Bradford, his immediate 
successor was alike entitled, though he had only one assistant 
to 1624, and then only five, and was himself an assistant 
to Robert Gorges, the Governor-General of New England. 
From this view, we turn to Massachusetts. Who doubts that 
the administration of Winthrop was sufficient to atibrd a similar 
distinction to him, though he had only seven assistants, besides 
himself and deputy, in August, 1030, and in the same year an 
order was made, that a major part of less than nine assistants 
might hold a court and perform its appro[)riate business ? It 
must be confessed that then, of necessity, was a day of small 
things. But the diuiinutiveness of the age should not be laid 
to the account of one so as to strip him of his merited honor, 
while it is not so much as named of others, to whom, in all 
equity, it should be alike applied. Let not prejudice hold us 
back from dealing with an even hand. 

The proceedings and language of the General Court, or free- 
men of the Company, convened in London, apply to the ques- 
tion before us. 

In IG29, about February, they provide for transmitting to 
Endicott the charter having the royal seal, and also their own 
seal. These he received in due time. April 30. The Court 
vote that the authorities of the Colony shall be styled the "Gov- 
ernor and Council of London's Plantation in the Massachusetts 
Bay." They then elect Endicott to be the said Governor, 
and most of the Council, and give instructions how the other 
members of it shall be chosen here. In defining his powers, 
they express themselves as follows, as entered on their own 
records: "And the said Governor at his discretion, or in his 
absence the deputy, is hereby authorized to appoint, as oft as 
there shall be occasion, and shall have full power and authority, 
and is hereby authorized from his Letters Patent, to make, 
ordain and establish ail manner of wholesome and reasonable 
orders, laws, statutes, ordinances and instructions, not contrary 



12 

to the laws of the realm of England, for the present government 
of our Plantation and the inhabitants residing within the limits 
of this onr Plantation." They order a transcript of this to be 
forwarded to Endicott. On the same day they empower him 
and his Council to choose a Secretary, and " such other subor- 
dinate officers to attend them at their Courts." May 7. They 
agree on the forms of oaths for the Governor, Deputy and 
Council of the Colony. That for the first of these officers, 
they denominate " the oath of the Governor in New England." 
The duties it required of him, it required of all his successors, 
as upon an equal footing in respect to rank. 29. As the head 
of the General Court in England, Cradock addresses a letter to 
him with the superscription, " Captain Jo : Endicott, Esquire, 
Governor." 

Their subsequent records frequently gave him the last title. 
In a review of all they said and did, so far as it has come down 
to us, there is not a shade of thought or expression, as it seems 
to me, which should lead any mind to infer, but that while 
they were legislating about him, appointing, addressing and 
styling liini Governor, they seriously and sincerely meant to 
apply the title to him in the highest colonial and fullest sense. 
It would be wronging them as conscientious men, who were 
ready to make great sacrifices for the founding of a religious 
commonwealth on our soil, to suspect or imply that they pur- 
posed to use the term in a double or vague sense, or in any 
form or degree diverse from its proper signification. 

To avoid any imputation of this kind, we must allow that 
the Company, from the spirit and letter of their charter, records 
and correspondence, did purpose to have a legitimate Governor, 
in the person of Endicott, on the premises of their Plantation, 
even while they exercised authority at home for the regulation 
of their trade, and the delegation of suitable legislative powers 
to such an officer and his associates. 

What does the succession of Winthrop to Cradock, imply? 
To arrive at a true answer to this question, let us deal with 
facts. Such an official investment had all its vital properties 
laid down in the Charter, which made the sphere of its imme- 
diate operation within the jurisdiction of Old England. There 
it was allowed to give legal direction to the affairs of the 
Company. It was endowed with no inward or outward quality 



13 

whereby it might leave the place assigned for its exercise, and 
take up its abode in another land, and still be essentially as it 
had been at its commencement. The Charter made England 
as requisite for the continuance of such investment, as it did 
that a competent number of the Company's officers should 
reside there while it was in existence. This investment had 
nought to do with leaving the mother country, crossing the 
ocean, landing on our soil, entering the Courts of our rulers 
and causing them to cease as though they had never been. 
No. In the whole length and breadth of the Charter, we 
discover no liberties of this sort. That document declares the 
duties of the Company's officers, who were in England, and, 
also, those of their officers in America. As to their respective 
and special services, it set up a wall of separation between 
them, saying, as it were, to one class of them, here is your 
allotment, and to the other, there is yours. It holds forth not 
even the shadow of a license for any of the former, provided 
they should, by change of abode, become legislatively connected 
with the latter, to push them aside and assume their civil dis- 
tinctions to themselves, simply for what they had been in a 
distant quarter of the world. So it is alike non-committed in 
the other direction. 

With his authority so bounded, we perceive nothing in the 
several communications of Cradock, that he was, in the least 
degree, dissatisfied because he was not styled the first Governor 
of the Colony as well as first Governor of the Company in 
England. He evidently would have felt that an attempt to 
foist on him such a double capacity was not only unjust to 
Endicott, but also a palpable violation of the charter, as well 
as contrary to the common usage of Corporations like the one 
he served. Winthrop, no less susceptible of generous emotions, 
must have known that, by a mere succession to Cradock, he 
could be endowed with no more honor or power than so worthy 
a predecessor realized. He must have perceived that when the 
Arbella spread her sails to the breeze, and bore him and his 
friends towards America, that he had ceased to be the head of 
the Company in England, and was to be only head of such 
of them as should have their domicile in the Colony, and thus 
to be no more nor less than the successor of Endicott, in the 
full sense of a bona fide, charter Governor, without any let or 



14 

hindrance of hypercritical distinctions, never known in their 
day of peril and toil for the Commonwealth, 

What did the Court iu London mean, when, on the 29th 
of August, 1629, as proposed for deUberation the preceding 
month, they voted, " that the Government and Patent should 
be settled in New England," though not finally decided upon 
till several weeks afterwards, because of serious constitutional 
objections? By a misconstruction of the phrase, here quoted, 
not a few persons, as it seems to me, have been led to adopt 
erroneous conclusions. They have supposed that it involved 
the necessity of n)aking some extraordinary change in the 
colonial polity, and of conferring on its administrators here a 
correspondent elevation. But their misapprehension may be 
corrected by a candid examination of the mode in which the 
movement was executed. The practical operation of a theory 
affords far better instruction as to its nature, than many 
speculations about it, however imaginative and ingenious. 

The settling of the government here was substantially the 
omission to have its agents chosen by the members of the 
Company in Old England, and the like act performed by those 
of the same corporation in New England. It secured to 
Winthrop no greater power than it had already conferred on 
Endicott. It raised the former not a single line higher above 
the colonists, than it had the latter. It dealt with both on the 
same Charter principles, and imparted to them equal rank and 
honor. 

Here it may be well to remark, that such an exchange of 
elective locations involved the nullification of the government 
as it existed under Cradock, and as required to be continued 
by the Charter. The following entry on our General Court 
records, of September 3, 1634, denotes an exception : 

'•' It is ordered, that there shall be letters written to these 
gentlemen, here under mentioned and sigiied by the Court of 
Assistants, viz : Messrs. George Harwood, John Revell, Thomas 
Andrews, Richard Andrews, Francis Kirby, Francis Webb, 
George Foxcroft, and Robert Reave, to entreat them to make 
choice of a man amongst themselves to be Treasurer for a year 
for this Plantation, as also to give them power to receive an 
account of Mr. Harwood, now Treasurer, as also to give the 
said Mr. Harwood a full discharge." Here is indication, that 



16 

members of the Massachusetts Company, who resided in 
England, were so far a government of trade, remaining there 
and connected with tiie Colony, as ])roposed in 1029, as to 
have a Treasurer for their fnnds, who was about to resign and 
another to take his place. How much this may subtract from 
the amoinit of confidence, entertained by some, that the whole 
administration as in being under Cradock, was moved over 
with Winthrop, and thereby swept away Endicoti's governor- 
ship, though a strange conclusion to my mind, they can judge 
for themselves. It may not be amiss to add here, that if such 
confidence were well founded, and on account of being at the 
head of the Company in London, any man should be denom- 
inated the first chief magistrate of Massachusetts, that man is 
Matthew Cradock, and no other. 

At this point, the query meets us, what is signified by 
settling the Patent in New England? It is essentially the 
same as settling the government here. This was the creature 
of that, and derived all 'its civil and religious polity from it, 
and the very body which it assumed, and the very spirit 
through which it existed, moved and acted. The establish- 
ment of the government on our shores necessarily involved the 
like action with reference to the Charter. This action implies, 
of course, what really occurred in its premises. One of two 
transcripts of that document, as well known, was used for the 
control of the Corporation, while they existed in England; but 
it ceased to be needed there, when they closed their organiza- 
tion and was brought to our country. Another transcript of it 
had, as before noted, been previously sent to Endicott as the 
guarantee for his colonial administration, and still remains in 
the place where its privileges were exercised. When he was 
succeeded by Winthrop, only one of these transcripts was 
needed, and that has been long deposited among the State 
archives. In such a manner was the Patent or Charter settled 
upon our soil, so as to have no further legislative connection 
with its proprietors, who dwelt in England. 

It is well known, that this transaction, so far as laying aside 
the government of the Corporation in that Kingdom, has been 
long represented by some as a fundamental violation of the 
Charter. Charles the I. and the Council for New England, took 
this stand. The Royal Council, under the date of June 19^ 



16 

1679, write to the Rulers of Massachusetts : " Since the Charter 
by its frame and constitution was originally to be executed in 
this {kingdom, and not in New England, otherwise than by 
deputation (as is accordingly practiced in all other charters of 
like nature), 'tis not possible to establish that perfect settlement 
we so much desire, until these things are better understood." 
Among the civilians, who have maintained the same ground, 
was the late Judge, Joseph Story. The history of Hutchinson 
says : " It is evident from the Charter, that the original design 
of it was to constitute a corporation in England, like to that of 
the East India and other great companies, with powers to settle 
plantations within the limits of the territory, under such forms 
of government and magistracy, as should be fit and necessary." 
While such objectors so held their opinion, they uttered no 
doubt but that the Company did elect, in London, a com- 
petent and proper Governor for their Colony, in the person of 
Endicott. 

We may learn from the foregoing observations, that the 
principal addition to the General Court of the Plaiitation, by 
establishing the government and patent here, was the choice of 
its chief magistrate, instead of having him appointed by similar 
authority in England. But location, all other things being 
equal, makes no essential difference in the grade of an officer. 
Washington would have been as much President of our Re- 
public had he been chosen in Boston as anywhere else, 
provided the Constitution allowed the practice. Endicott 
therefore should, by no mistaken construction, suffer loss in 
his rank, by being elected by members of the Company in 
London instead of Massachusetts. We feel assured, that 
Winthrop saw nothing in the settlement of the government 
and charter on our soil, which could justify him in attempting 
to exclude Endicott from being his constitutional predecessor 
in office. No, the enlightened mind, the truthful conscience, 
and the noble heart of Winthrop would have shrunk from such 
a trick of political management. 

How do various historians represent the office of Endicott 
prior to Winthrop's arrival? Josselyn, Johnson and Morton 
speak of the former, as being governor in 1629, without the 
least qualification, as if he were in any form or degree, of 
any lower grade than the latter. Prince, in his New England, 



17 

relates the proceedings of the Company in London in confer- 
ring a name upon their Colony. He then says, that they 
"elect Mr. Endicott Governor,"' and four times in immediate 
succession, in the same paragraph, he applies the like title to 
him in connection with the transactions of such a body. 
Prince, who was quick to detect small as well as great errors, 
and particular to state them, evidently had no misgivings as to 
the common sense meaning of Governor, assigned to Endicott; 
had no doubt but that he might most accurately and un- 
reservedly apply to him the title, without being justly charged 
with the least particle of misrepresentation. Hutchinson, while 
narrating the Company's course of business, in the same year, 
says : " The names of all the adventurers and the sums sub- 
scribed, were sent over to Mr. Endicott, who was appointed 
tiieir Governor in the Plantation." A man, like Hutchinson, 
would never have made this statement, had he the least 
suspicion that it contained a contradiction ; that it could be, 
in some anomalous and strange manner, construed to mean the 
Governor of a Colony or State, and, at the same instant and 
in the same relation, mean no such oliicer, but an uncertain, 
undefined something, without notifying his readers of such 
a perplexed and distorted use of the English tongue. It 
comes to my recollection, distinctly, that a highly distinguished 
literary gentleman, who had great confidence in Hutchinson's 
talents, intelligence and correctness, while contending that 
Winthrop was the first Governor of our Commonwealth, 
appealed to that author with evident assurance, that lie would 
support his position, but was greatly disappointed when he saw 
that his words contradicted his theory. And so I believe will 
many a man, who has not already committed himself in an 
opposite direction, and who consults their statements, without 
any previous bias, be conscious, that Hutchinson and Prince 
meant to be understood, that they had no doubts but that 
Endicott was in 1C29 a true, constitutional and proper Governor 
of Massachusetts, as much as Winthrop or any of his successors 
ever were under the colonial charter, and consequently and 
righteously accounted the first on the list of such magistrates 
in our Commonwealth. 

" Fiat justitia, ruat cocluin."' 



u 



VJ^ 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





014 068 902 6 




>-^ 



x / 



v^ .' 



J<>^ 



-^ >^ 



